IN HINDSIGHT

(In Hindsight 19/May 6-10, 2008)

Zimbabwe used to be known as the breadbasket of Africa. These days it is considered a basket case. It’s a very poor country, despite the fact that nearly everyone’s a multi-millionaire.

Unfortunately there’s not much you can do with a million Zimbabwean dollars because the inflation rate is about 165,000 per cent. It’s not even enough for a loaf of bread, let alone a basket.

Yet Robert Mugabe’s government has found an impressive solution to the problem. They just keep printing Zimbabwean dollars until there are enough to buy anything they want, including American dollars at the ‘official’ rate. Of course, by the time it reaches common citizens THEY can’t always get what they want. Unless they’re dying for crumb cake.

President Mugabe is most famous for two things. Firstly, he was a freedom fighter who fought bravely to gain liberty for his country. Secondly, he has fought even harder to take liberty away from his fellow Zimbabweans.

Mugabe came to power in 1980, following a campaign of threats and violence. These have expectedly increased since then, and he is accused of conducting a ‘reign of terror’. Combined with a reign of errors in economics, it ensures Zimbabwe remains a low-cholesterol country. Its life expectancy is among the least on earth.

Since 2000 the President’s men have seized most white-owned farmland. Now it was Deng Xiaoping who once declared, “It doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice.” Similarly you could say it shouldn’t matter where a farmer was bred, so long as he grows bread. However, the only thing that’s growing in Zimbabwe these days is Mugabe’s Hitler-style moustache.

Mugabe has said that, circumstances dictating, he would like to “be a Hitler tenfold”. His toothbrush moustache is narrower than Hitler’s, perhaps reflecting that he’s more narrow-minded. His land-reform policy has failed because he gave farmland to his cronies and people without resources to use it. Coincidence dictating, his family now owns several large farms.

Many people thought this tenfold-Hitler’s regime would never fold up. They were pleasantly surprised when, after the March elections, officials admitted Mugabe’s party had lost control of parliament and he was trailing in the presidential poll. Had the man turned over a new loaf, I mean, leaf? But then the delaying tactics started.

By Zimbabwe’s election law any second round of voting must take place within three weeks. But it took nearly five weeks just for the first-round results to be announced. As expected they claimed the opposition was short of a majority; and there would have to be a ‘runoff’ election.

What’s the real purpose of this runoff? To make his opponents run off, obviously. The level of violence and intimidation has further increased since March, to ensure their absence next time. But let’s look on the bright side: these desperate measures suggest Mugabe’s zany ZANU-PF party no longer has the power to rig elections; and all they can do is beat and kill people. That’s a slightly happier situation.

The government has also promised (again) to amend its economic policies and beat hyperinflation. Zimbabwe’s Reserve Bank governor, Mr. Gideon Gono, has vowed, “This dragon cannot be allowed to continue and we will deal a decisive blow to its existence!” Let’s hope his words turn out to be unwittingly prophetic in that they apply to Mugabe as well.

(In Hindsight 18/Apr. 22-26, 2008)

The Olympics evolved from ancient funeral games meant to celebrate death. So you might consider the killings in Tibet an appropriate curtain-raiser to this year’s competition.

In Ancient Greece, people didn’t just cry into their cloaks when someone croaked. They often held funeral games where they competed for prizes. So in theory the more people that died, the more fun and games there would be. Perhaps that’s how the Chinese government looks at it.

I’m exaggerating, of course. The Chinese haven’t killed all Tibetans, though they have killed many. They’ve also given the Dalai Llama so many black eyes that you might call him the Dull-Eye Llama by now. They’re always accusing him of ‘splittism’, although he split and exited Tibet long ago. If anything it’s Beijing that’s guilty of splittism because they make one split one’s sides at their laughable accusations.

During the Olympics, China will be killing two football teams every day. That’s the number of secret executions they carry out daily, according to Amnesty International. Says Kate Allen, AIUK director, “China gets the gold medal for global executions.”

While bidding for the Olympic Games, China promised to improve its human rights record. Not surprisingly the opposite seems to have happened. In an effort to be good hosts, they have been cracking down on potential party-poopers such as human rights activists and even journalists. (I just hope I don’t find a bomb in my next fortune cookie.)

Last week the Olympic torch came to India, which has no lack–rather, a lakh–of Tibetan refugees. Now ‘carrying the torch’ may not sound so glamorous in a nation of power cuts where we do it all the time. But any lost glamour was made up for by film stars, celebrities and politicians who participated in the event. Never mind that they were the only ones attending.

Sports Minister M. S. Gill earlier said only “real athletes” had the right to carry the torch. But what do you expect in a land that sends more officials than sportspersons to the Games?

Regardless, the celebs were in the unusual position of not being ogled while showing their legs. The relay route was reduced to barely 1.5 miles, wherein 70 runners carried the flaming thing for a few paces each. The only spectators were thousands of policemen and a few of those omnipresent journalists. People in overlooking buildings were ordered to keep their windows, doors, and traps firmly shut.

At least we managed to avoid incidents like those in France where the torch was extinguished. But in China, liberty’s torch isn’t burning brightly either. President Hu Jintao, once considered a closet reformist, has acquitted himself as a hardliner even if he talks about meeting “the legitimate demands of China’s citizens for freedom”. China’s citizens? Who, Jintao?

In spite of the Dalai Llama condemning violence and supporting the Beijing Olympics, Premier Wen Jiabao said of the recent Tibet riots that “this incident was organised, premeditated, masterminded and incited by the Dalai clique.” When, Jiabao?

Perhaps they really mean what Tibet’s kingly party chief Zhang Qingli has explicitly stated: “The Central Party Committee is the real Buddha for Tibetans.” So much for the other Buddha’s talk of ‘reality’ being an illusion!

(In Hindsight 17/Apr. 8-12, 2008)

Sooner or later, there will be a nuclear attack of some sort. Perhaps a crazed terrorist will cause it. Then again it could be a crazy national leader. There is no shortage of them in today’s world.

Recently the North Koreans fired more missiles to frighten the rest of the world. They have threatened that ‘everything will become ashes, not just a sea of fire’. Somehow a sea of fire sounds more painful, but that’s not my point.

North Korea is led by a short angry man called Kim Jong-il, whose puffed hairstyle resembles a small nuclear explosion. He is thought to be capable of hair-raisingly dangerous deeds. Former European Commissioner Chris Patten suggested, after meeting him, that he was a nutcase. But is he mad enough to start a war?

Kim Jong-il is a drinker who reportedly used to purchase almost a million dollars’ worth of cognac per year before switching to wine, of which he owns a 10,000-bottle cellar. He’s also a movie buff who collects tens of thousands of them, including the sort where actors do stuff in the buff. What if one day he gets drunk and naked, confuses real life with reel strife, and pushes the nuclear button instead of the one on his player? Or pulls the wrong joystick?

He has allowed many of his countrymen, and even soldiers, to starve to death in times of famine. Now if he can kill his own army, then it’s small beer to think of hurting the enemy. However, the surest sign of his sanity is that he responds to money. His peace talks always depend on receiving aid or unfreezing bank accounts. How else would he pay for the goodies?

There are other eccentric leaders who either have nuclear weapons or may be seeking them. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran is one example. I’m not accusing him of being, ah, mad; yet he has strange ideas in his head–such as his belief that the holocaust never happened, or that there are no gay people in Iran.

But maybe one should use the word gay in its original sense, i.e. that there are no happy people in Iran. Life is quite dull there as women aren’t supposed to even bare one hair (and I do mean the cranial). And you can forget about taking a tipple with topless dancers, unless by topless you mean having their heads removed. Well, at the very least they would go to jail. You’d think it’s a plot to drive some poor people to gayness. Thankfully his is not the last word on waging war.

Of course, the greatest recent threat of nuclear war came right here, on the India-Pakistan border, during a military stand-off involving hundreds of thousands of troops in 2001-02. Our Defence Minister warned that possibly “there will be no Pakistan” any more. By George! Not even ashes? Our ministers too talk like nutters at times, but mercifully it’s still only talk.

Then there are those who say it’s Bush and Blair and Brown et cetera that are the real lunatics for not pursuing more conciliatory policies, while others like the South Korean administration believe only a tough approach can work. Will carrots or sticks do the trick? Maybe we should talk to the donkeys.

(In Hindsight 16/Mar. 20-29, 2008)

The US government wants to raise a 1,200-kilometre fence along the Mexican border. They are trying hard to complete it in 2008, thus bringing off the erection and the election together.

Some people are protesting against this barrier. Apart from family and property issues, many Mexicans sincerely wish to keep crossing the border to work on American farms. And many Americans obligingly want to keep exploiting them. An illegal Mexican can be paid just a few dollars an hour, whereas a new tractor costs over $100,000. Given a choice, which would you rather drive into the ground?

Everywhere, walls are being built to keep others out. Israel is putting up a 700-km multi-layered West Bank fence to impede Middle Easterners. India is sealing the Bangladesh border with a 4,000-km double barbed-wire fence, easily the world’s longest–in some cases dividing villages, or cutting off locals from their bathrooms if not more private parts; and plans a 1,000-mile barrier on the Burmese boundary. On the other side of the country, there are fond hopes of eventually extending Kashmir’s electrified triple fence along the whole Pakistan border. Shocking borders are the order of the day in Gandhi’s land.

Even South Africa, where Gandhi gained fame and apartheid used to be the biggest sin, maintains multiple razor-wire fences to keep its despised neighbours out. Zimbabwean or Mozambican immigrants are often referred to as ‘baboons’ and treated as such. Citizens have been wrongly jailed for looking ‘too black’ to be a black South African.

Consequently immigrants are easier than ever to abuse, and you can get attractive bargains there. If you wish to sexually exploit them, it’s simple. Just remember to use your own rubber barrier because many have AIDS. Mozambican farm workers may toil for less than one dollar a day–or you could call the police to deport them on payday, and pay nothing at all. Others will replace them. You’ll also find Zimbabwean doctors and lawyers willing to work as cleaners of your dirt and ditchwater. Well, talk about brain drain!

Even animals are treated better. The South African government has partially taken down border fences to create a ‘transfrontier’ wildlife park where animals could migrate freely and happily. If you are a human migrant, however, you might at best hope for a dog’s life there.

Humans were seemingly put on this earth to build walls, which they’ve been doing for thousands of years. Witness the Great Wall of China, the greatest man-made structure ever–which is not, as the name missuggests, made of fragile china. Millions of Chinese lives were sacrificed to construct it, possibly more than would have been lost to the enemies it obstructed in history: but finally a Ming general called Wu Sangui sanguinely wooed Qing invaders and opened the gates; and the Ming-Qing wingding ended the whole f–ing thing. Ultimately every wall is breached.

Yet it would be impractical to open the world’s borders and grant free admission to terrorists and economic refugees. So what’s the solution?

Please don’t ask me. My job is to write about these things in a detached manner, poking fun at them from within the walls of my workplace, which luckily is located in a (mostly) democratic country. I do hope no immigrants come and steal my job. But I’m also hoping someone comes up with a smarter answer.

(In Hindsight 15/Mar. 4-8, 2008)

It’s becoming hard to resist the temptation of alcohol–not because of the drunken pleasures it affords, but for its health benefits.

I personally dislike the taste of alcohol. However, if researchers keep coming up with studies demonstrating its benefits, I may be forced to try to acquire the taste if not become a total drunkard.

Up to two alcoholic drinks a day are generally good for a man’s health. For a woman, the healthy limit is one drink. This is fine not only because it leaves more for men, but in the sense that it reduces the risk of everything from heart disorders to strokes.

The latest findings are still better in terms of both health benefits and alcohol allowance: that men who take two or MORE drinks daily could reduce their risk of suffering prostate enlargement, a cause of painful urination which one imagines would be particularly difficult–and hard to aim–right after those drinks.

Apart from alcohol content, there are other goodies in a glass of booze. The best example is wine–especially red wine–containing polyphenolic antioxidants, most notably resveratrol which is structurally similar to oestrogens, the female sex hormones. (Male drinkers need not fear because it can in fact boost your testosterone production. There is no threat of breast development.)

Red wine is considered good for your heart and bad for your cancer. Research suggests it bestows further blessings such as fighting diabetes, lowering harmful cholesterol, protecting your inner ear against loud sounds (very useful when socializing with other noisy drunks) and slowing the rate of memory decline among older people. Of course, this may be bad news for those who drink to forget.

Many doctors recommend a daily glass of wine for health and happiness. Yet for those innocent individuals who are planning to start drinking regularly after reading this article, we should remind ourselves there are better ways to health than sitting slouched over a bar counter: you could try healthier eating and exercising, for example. One can also get a reasonable amount or resveratrol from good old unfermented grape juice, or things that cost peanuts in comparison–such as peanuts themselves, which contain half as much by weight as wine.

Indeed, I hope I haven’t sounded like a spokesman for the alcohol industry. I think it’s now my duty to scare you a bit and affirm that uncontrolled drinking can have devastating effects not only on individuals but on whole societies. Take the case of Russia, where alcoholism was the biggest factor in making it the only industrialized nation with reduced life expectancy, to well below 60 years for Russian men. Admittedly India needs population control, but not in such a way. Even Sanjay Gandhi’s pipe-pruning programme sounds preferable by comparison.

The Russian population decline took place under President Boris Yeltsin, who loved Stolichnaya vodka and freed the vodka industry from state restrictions. He often delivered speeches when drunk, and once staggered around the American presidential guest house in his underpants before yelling desperately for some pizza. Eventually he died of heart failure. Would you want such a terrible thing to happen to you? I assure you nobody would give you any pizza in that state, and you’d have to go hungry.

So here’s to your health, ladies and gentlemen–by which I don’t necessarily mean go drown yourself in drink!

(In Hindsight 14/Feb. 19-23, 2008)

A giant lump of metal, weighing thousands of kilograms, was expected to fall from the sky. Nobody knew where it might land. By the time you read this the U.S. Navy may have shot it down. Otherwise, let’s hope it breaks up and falls safely in the ocean or on Lindsay Lohan’s head, both of which are empty spaces.

The great lump was an errant American spy satellite. The last time such an uncontrolled descent took place the entire Skylab space station fell in 1979. Panic reigned, and people bought insurance. Someone named his son Skylab Singh, obviously hoping he would rise high in life. Eventually its wreckage scattered in the Indian Ocean and remote Western Australia: the only disaster occurred when an Australian municipality tried to fine the U.S. government a few hundred dollars for littering–but failed.

As nobody received a lump on the head last time, people have become less scared of falling space junk. Indeed there are certain countries that wouldn’t mind if the satellite crashed in their territory. The Russian and Chinese governments would charge nothing to salvage its sensitive parts.

A lot of individuals might also have prayed for it to fall near, if not directly on, them. In 1979 an Australian earned 10,000 dollars for delivering some pieces of Skylab. These days, with the possibility of online auctions (where even a jar of ‘celebrity air’ has been sold on eBay), the sky is the limit.

Yet such man-made masses are nothing compared to what’s waiting in deep space to hit us. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the Tunguska explosion, when a large object fell over a Siberian forest and knocked down about 100 million trees. But that object was less than 200 metres across, and cosmically a mere pinprick.

As we know, 65 millions years ago an asteroid more than 10 kilometres in diameter created the Chicxulub crater in Mexico, causing earthquakes, eruptions, megatsunamis, and raising enough dust to black out the sun for months or years. Food supplies were totally disrupted. I’m sure even the Mumbai dabbawallahs would have been delayed in such conditions. Not surprisingly this wiped out the dinosaurs and 50 per cent of living species on earth.

But that asteroid too was a drop in the ocean compared to what happened 251 million years ago, when 90 per cent of all species died. Some old craters indicate an asteroid up to five times as wide as the dinosaur-slaying one. Since it killed many small unglamorous creatures called synapsids, however, it never gets as much publicity as the Chicxulub club.

How are we to survive if another big one strikes? The conventional response has been popularized through a series of bad movies showing us blasting asteroids and comets to pieces with nuclear weapons.

Actually Bruce Willis blowing up an asteroid would only make things worse, because most of the pieces would continue on their course and could cause much more damage than the original mass. It’s likelier that we’d know the trajectory of a large approaching asteroid several solar orbits in advance–and just give it a nudge which would make it gradually move away.

Is India prepared? Our policymakers would nudge and wink at each other instead of the asteroid, and talk of ex-gratia and other payments, but that’s probably the best we can expect.

(In Hindsight 13/Feb. 5-9, 2008)

Where was the French president’s girlfriend when he visited the Taj Mahal? Apparently it was ‘protocol problems’ that prevented Carla Bruni, whom he has now married, from making the trip as his merry mistress.

The most romantic thing Nicolas Sarkozy did on his visit to India was go for a car ride with President Pratibha Patel. Unfortunately, I don’t think Mrs. Patel believes in polyandry as Carla does. Plus, there’s a comparable age difference but in the reverse direction.

Carla has stated, “I’m monogamous from time to time, but I prefer polygamy and polyandry.” Then why did Sarkozy get cosy with her and boast of his prospects? Were such Sarkozyisms mere sarcasm? Is he hoping this time she’ll be monogamous, or just escaping the monotonous?

Sarkozy is not the first French politician she’s been with. She used to be the fling thing of former prime minister Laurent Fabius. Moreover, her latest music album is called “No Promises”–make of which what you will.

And what does SHE see in him? Is he a liberal Saint Nicholas to her? He has indeed been buying her expensive jewellery; but she’s a rich heiress herself. Also, he looks much worse in swimwear. Is it social standing? Nowadays she wears flat shoes while he walks in two-inch heels, yet she’s still a few inches taller.

Actually if Sarkozy had mentioned marriage with Carla ten years ago it would have sounded unreasonable. However when unreachable stars like her turn fortyish they often start thinking about settling down. Even Madonna, who once advocated promise-free promiscuity and said “I’m not married–who could stand me?” decided to settle at about that age. Her second marriage has lasted seven years. For dogs and divas, that’s an eternity.

Why does this happen? Sometimes it’s because women feel they are running out of time to have babies. But who needs to be married for that these days? And Carla already has a child. He’s the son of the son of a certain Monsieur Enthoven. While living with him she began an affair with his son, a philosophy professor, and this logically led to a grandson.

Can middle-aged mademoiselles turn into moral creatures overnight? To quote Madonna in her year of marriage, “I’ve gone through all my sexual rebellion and don’t need to do it any more.” And here’s a better one: “I thank God every day that I married a man who made me think.” Well, Guy Ritchie may not be in the Raphael Enthoven class–but you know the case of the quarterback who looked like a rocket scientist to Jessica Simpson.

Maybe some women are scared when they grow wrinkles they won’t be able to find so many lovers to share their bed, and discover new virtue in a man who’s legally bound to it. If so they probably fret too much. Enough men never notice anything, and might not care whether they get wrinkles or love handles to hold on to.

Returning to Sarkozy’s reasons, it was suggested that after his second wife Cecilia left him he clung to Carla for comfort or to make Cecilia jealous. It appeared to have worked. The ex-wife attacked him as “ridiculous, badly behaved and unfit to be president”. Now there has been a happy ending to the drama, at least for journalists with nothing better to write about.

(In Hindsight 12/Jan. 22-26, 2008)

I’m a bit scared of the national flag. What if someday I accidentally swing my feet or more lowly parts toward it, and find myself in jail for no intended affront?

Sania Mirza was recently called for a foot fault committed in another country. She was photographed sitting with her feet directed toward a small plastic tricolour, and some super-patriots decided to kick up a racket over it. She has been summoned by an Indian court. After all this she reportedly considered hanging up her racquet, if not herself.

In Australia, the country where she made the faux pas, there are no restrictions on what you can do with their flag. You may burn it. It has even been destroyed in the name of art, by a Melbourne artist who torched and mounted his national flag as an exhibit at a Melburnian gallery. Such are the hot trends.

The Australian prime minister’s comment at the time was, “I don’t think we achieve anything by making it a criminal offence. We only turn yahoo behaviour into martyrdom.”

In the U.S.A., defacing a flag is a citizen’s constitutional right. In the judgment establishing this, Justice William J. Brennan of their Supreme Court wrote, ‘We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.’

But if you really want to have fun with flag-burning, go to Denmark. There, you’re allowed to desecrate the Danish flag yet not the flag of any other country. I plan to travel there one day and cook their colours, while taunting them with, “Make my day, Danes! Just try it with mine!”

India has a Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act under which one can be jailed for up to three years if bringing the flag ‘into contempt’. Thus I have little to say about our honour, whether as an Act or actuality; but will remind you that around the world many a dignitary’s prickly sense of pride has bred contempt for human rights.

In Turkey, the charge of ‘insulting national honour’ has been used to silence people and deny the Armenian Genocide under the Ottomans. (Guess who had the box seats!) When politicians talk too loudly about honour they are usually trying to cover a fault or commit a crime.

And when the media do it, it’s to make people rage and spend their wage, as in the recent cricket controversy where all objectivity was lost over a ball game (it’s the eyeball game that counts for us). One is reminded of the Football War between El Salvador and Honduras in 1969, where the media helped inflame enmities, lower standards and drive everyone up the pole.

When freedom is restricted it can be a slippery slope. Let’s not forget that the Nazis began by banning some types of art, and went on to ban types of human beings. The Taliban first spoke of transparent consensus and ended with a one-eyed dictator leading the veiled. And Simon Cowell started in the mail room at EMI Music but now ‘goes postal’ each time he hears a nasal singer.

Should banners symbolize banning everything? Let’s hope the fabric of democracy is stronger than a piece of cloth. And that its citizens don’t get burned up by every matchstick man.

(In Hindsight 11/Jan. 8-12, 2008)

This year the king of Nepal will be kicked out of his palace. Already his head has been removed–from currency notes. Apparently Nepal’s people have decided that the 239-year-old Snake Throne is really being occupied by a snake, who needs to hiss off.

The king was said to be a living incarnation of God. I don’t believe God looks like that. With his dour expression, he sooner resembles an incarnation of Jabba the Hutt from Star Wars. Now he’ll be going to a galaxy far far away; or possibly even India.

For centuries the Nepalese kings held sway–until crown prince Dipendra, swaying with drink, shot most of the royal family including himself seven years ago. The absence of Gyanendra from the scene led to speculation that the slaughter was instigated. But this theory has been generally shot down.

Whatever Dipendra the dipsomaniac did, Gyanendra became the next king and didn’t bother about his approval ratings. He once put up a public billboard proclaiming, ‘H.M. King Gyanendra Does Not Seek Cheap Popularity’. Now he’s paying a high price.

The king didn’t win laurels from his people, but received plenty from other rulers, including the Order of the White Elephant from the king of Thailand. Now the question is, has the Thai royal family also become a proverbial white elephant? Do societies across the world want their high-priced monarchies to go?

King Bhumibol of Thailand didn’t make the same mistakes as Gyanendra. He’s the world’s longest-reigning monarch, yet never did or could seize absolute power. Rather, he has profited from the rule of Thai dictators who did the dirty work for him.

50 years ago the Thai monarchy had been sidelined. Then the dictator Sarit Thanarat took charge and raised its profile while lowering its subjects. Citizens were told to get on their knees and crawl before the king. This practice had been discarded by Bhumibol’s grandfather, King Chulangkorn; but the grandson wanted grander things. Well, at least they don’t have to slither.

Could change come creeping back? 226 years ago Bhumibol’s family captured the throne by executing a certain King Thaksin. Things have come full circle: in 2006 the king was stated by coup leaders to have supported the overthrow of democratically-elected populist Thaksin Shinawatra. The embarrassment must have been double when Shinawatra’s allies topped the election last month. Not quite as humiliating as crawling, but close enough.

Still, the Thai king is revered as a godlike being today, and so long as he remembers when to keep quiet he’s stay that way. Other kings are going farther, introducing democracy by royal pleasure.

In 2005, while Nepal’s king was grabbing power, Bhutan’s king announced an end to his own reign. This month their first parliamentary elections were held. Ironically he had driven out more than 100,000 ethnic Nepalese from his kingdom in the 1990s for demanding democratic rights, and many remaining weren’t allowed to vote. Considering India’s influence over that country, should we claim credit for this?

Other democratized autocrats are doing well. A recent British poll put support for the monarchy at almost 80 per cent. And Holland’s Queen Beatrix, who rides bicycles rather than gilded carriages, has a positive rating in the 90s. It proves you need not be a god to get people’s loyalty and money. Whether this principle applies to the Bhutto and Gandhi families is unverified.

(In Hindsight 10/Dec. 25-29, 2007)

How many feet does a football team require? Many would say 22 feet; but there are some national teams that need more than 9,000 feet to win matches.

Teams like Bolivia frequently get thrashed in matches played at sea level. However, in the high cities of Bolivia it’s visiting teams who are all at sea.

Though Bolivia is ranked last in South America, and number 108 in the world, it has recorded famous victories over both current top teams, Argentina and Brazil, in the thin cold air of its home stadium at La Paz which is also known as the Condor’s Nest. The stadium is located at nearly 12,000 feet.

This year, a top Brazilian league team played a Bolivian one at the still higher city of Potosi, in freezing rain at over 13,000 feet. Several Brazilian players had to receive oxygen from cylinders during the match. They escaped with a draw, but swore never again to play in such ‘inhumane’ conditions.

This month FIFA banned international matches at above 2,750 metres (9,020 feet) “without acclimatization” of players. Earlier they had banned matches starting at 2,500 metres, but backed down after a campaign led by the Bolivian president, Evo Morales, who called it discrimination and participated in a protest match with mountaineers on a volcano at almost 20,000 feet, managing to score a goal himself. I don’t know whether they just let him.

After this performance Morales declared, “Wherever you can make love, you can play sports.” I only wonder how many ladies got frostbite.

Whether Morales’ moralizing once more forces FIFA to give ground is up in the air. Perhaps we should think about ourselves first. In stark contrast to our high cricket ranking where we are in the top five (out of about 10), our football placing is far behind Bolivia. The solution must be to find some unfair advantage of our own.

Let’s not forget we have the tallest mountains in the world. If we invited a highly-ranked but low-lying side like the Netherlands, and sent a team of brick-tea-toughened Sherpas to play them in the Himalayas, I’m sure even Dutch courage wouldn’t help the visitors.

Bolivians have underscored that FIFA lacks rules limiting the temperature of a football field, or other home advantages. They believe extreme heat, for example, would be more harmful to athletes than elevation. At its meeting to ice the altitude attitude, FIFA’s president mentioned the problem of mid-day matches scheduled for next year’s Olympics at Beijing where temperatures can reach 40 degrees Celsius; but made no move to tackle it.

So even if Evo fails, there are other tricks available to us. I don’t believe FIFA has yet banned matches in mud, moderate flood or polluted air. Ours is a diverse country with many terrains and temperatures: when we invite Iceland to play, the venue could be the Thar Desert; and when we take on Africans or Arabians, how about the Siachen Glacier? No, that might bring up the altitude issue again–if not a turf war.

Maybe we needn’t worry so much about physical sports. For at those sports which the most unfit people can play, such as chess, we are doing very well. And where does brawn matter more than brain in the civilized world, except when you’re jostling for tickets to rough games that only fools would risk hurting themselves in?